Talk:Dconf
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Removal of {{copypaste}}
editLjL had put {{copypaste}} on the page and think that most of it is copyvio. After seeing a related site, www.gnome.org, I removed the notice on copyvio, since the site declared that their resources are under CC-BY. NasssaNser (talk/edits) 11:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- NasssaNser that specific page the content was copied from is a wiki, and does not explicitly state a license. Even if we tentatively accept that the license of www.gnome.org reasonably applies to its subsites, a wiki is written by users, not by www.gnome.org themselves, and unless the users explicitly license the content under a license compatible with Wikipedia, we cannot use it. Aside from that, I really do not think an article about a niche piece of software should mainly consist of a wholesale copypaste from its official site. LjL (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Wrong order?
editBecause dconf is only the linux backend of gsettings, I had expected an article about the cross platform tool gsettings with a chapter about dconf, not the other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.142.169 (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
No real alternatives in the alternatives section
editNone of the proposed alternatives to dconf are really alternatives. The GIMP example is just an example of how you could do settings without an alternative and the Windows section, which take up the bulk of the section, details how horrible the windows registry is.
Are there really any proper alternatives to dconf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.160.194 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)